Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National APIDA Panhellenic Association


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  MBisanz  talk 17:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

National APIDA Panhellenic Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities continues the work of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities as the foremost compendium on the subject. This resource currently highlights this article's subject. Its existence as an umbrella organizations for Cultural interest fraternities and sororities that serve Asian American students and alumni. Its organizational peers include the National Panhellenic Conference, North American Interfraternity Conference, National Pan-Hellenic Council, National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, and National Multicultural Greek Council; the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, the premier professional association for professionals working with college fraternities and sororities, recognizes it as such. --Littledrummrboy (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Adding to coverage/notability: Additional hits can be found under the Association's previous name, National APIA Panhellenic Association. --Littledrummrboy (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Sadly you will have to find significant coverage of the National APIDA Panhellenic Association and its activities before it even begins to meet Wikipedia's notability standards for organizations. All the article seems to say is, "We worked hard to put this together." There is no claim of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To your point, U|Bejnar, I have just added several references to journals and the independent Fraternity and Sorority Archive at the University of Illinois, where the NAPA group (~APIDA) is profiled in a section of its own. While earnest and valid, and offered in good faith, I agree that the article had been thinly sourced.  I believe my edits to this page should suffice to prove notability.  This trade organization is on similar footing to a half dozen other active, valid groupings of national organizations. Jax MN (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - This is another example of a useful article by a new or unfamiliar Wikipedian that is being attacked with an unnecessary AfD PROD. The reasonable course of action ought to have been to improve the article. I have now done this, and others ought to continue to do so.  The article now meets any reasonable notability review. Jax MN (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the big picture, I don't like this tactic of littering WP with AfD PRODs as a way to spark emergency page cleanup; a disinterested observer might view this as harassment. Other writers have long claimed that such AfD PRODs are lazy (versus making the effort to improve articles). Analyzing how this could have been a good faith edit instead of bad faith, it appears this is the method Onel5969 chose to spur edits. I wrote an article on Wooster's Greeks that had well over 100 citations, I thought they were joking, but after I showed clear notability with these many citations, Onel5969 added a "needs further citations" template at the top of that well-referenced page! Still, they seem to be a veteran editor whose skills might be used more effectively. Rather than this ongoing campaign to delete fraternity and sorority articles, (as if we only had room for a few of the largest), my advice to U|Onel5969 is to fix these articles, offer creative and helpful suggestions for the many newbies that are turned off by aggressive deletion tactics, and to grow the WP team. We have plenty of space; deletion shouldn't be the first impulse. Jax MN (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, per my comments above; it was pointed out to me I had neglected to vote. --Littledrummrboy (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep- Refs have been brought to standard.Naraht (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - none of the sources are in-depth from independent sources.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment-, one of the criteria for article inclusion on Wikipedia is most definitely not that we have enough room. The guideline may be as clear as a muddy lake but that is what we have to work with. Space on Wikipedia is not a factor in anything I have seen and not a very strong argument for subject inclusion. Sources do not necessarily need to be added to an article to assert notability but are recommended. We can agree that AfD is not for article cleanup but is often misused just for that. However, I want to point out that there is a clear distinction between presumed notability and, what I call, confirmed notability, though the term is never actually used. Almost every SNG and even the GNG explains that presumed notability does not guarantee an article will be kept or should be included as a stand-alone article but, with certain criteria being met, one could presume a subject is notable and create an article based on that presumption. The only process by which an article can be confirmed to be notable is through the AfD process because the AfD process is a rebuttal of presumed notability and subsequent discussion to reach consensus on said presumed notability to confirm it. If this process were a court of law then one could argue that a decision in one case would dictate those that follow but the AfD process specifically notes that a decision over one AfD does not count as a precedence in other cases. Each AfD should be in a bubble all its own. So the question goes back to whether this subject has received significant coverage in what the encyclopedia determines is multiple reliable independent and secondary verifiable sources regardless of whether those are referenced in the article or not. I do not know enough about this subject to suggest a course of action. I will say that there were no red flags when I looked at the sources provided. Sorry for the long explanation and I won't take up any more of anyone's time. -- A Rose Wolf  14:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the above comment of ARoseWolf seems a confirmed notability. Passes WP:NORG. GermanKity (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an established organization with an active site in addition to the comments above. I see no reason to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhani96 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. The sources added to the article now meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an established organization and is a collective group of leaders within the Asian Pacific Islander Desi American community who work together to advocate, collaborate, and educate their members and constituency for the greater good. This page should be kept to give a voice to this community and provide history/resources to AAGLO's. Rayadragon (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.